sign in sign up
<<
Home , Chrysaphius, Council of Chalcedon, Council of Ephesus, Cyrrhestica, Daniel the Stylite, Eutyches

I ntroduction

Volker Menze

Barsauma destroyed all . He incited thousands of against us. . . . Drive out the murderer . The murderer to the stadium! to Barsauma! Barsauma into exile!1

The basis for these accusations brought forth by the assembled at the Council of in 451 remains dubious, but they were nevertheless serious and far-reaching: the archimandrite Barsauma (Barsaumas/Barsumas/Barsawmo, etc.)2 was believed to have led riotous monks against their bishops as well as hav- ing been involved in the assassination of Flavian of (446– 449). Flavian had been deposed two years earlier at the Second Council of and died shortly afterward under unclear circumstances.3 I ndependent of the question of whether these accusations bear any truth, this very unflattering description of Barsauma in the Acts of the council has at least partially shaped the negative image of Barsauma in Western history. How- ever, for a little more than 100 years now Barsauma has also been known from another text: just before the First World War François Nau edited and translated some Syriac fragments of Barsauma’s Life, which show the wandering as a violent ascetic and anti-Jewish zealot.4 Since their publication, these fragments of Barsauma’s have been used widely in scholarship, although they present less than a third of the full Life. The full Life of Barsauma offers one of the longest and most extensive from antiquity—longer than, for exam- ple, the three surviving lives of altogether!

1.CO A II.1.2, 116 (tr. Price and Gaddis, 2:156, modified). 2. Various transliterations of the name (from the Greek and Syriac texts) have been used; we de- cided to use the commonly known Barsauma. 3. henry Chadwick, “TheE xile and Death of Flavian of Constantinople: A Prologue to the ,” Journal of Theological Studies 6 (1955): 17–34. 4. see below in the section “Scholarship on Barsauma.”

1

Hahn-Wandering Holy Man.indd 1 03/04/20 5:14 PM 2 Introduction

A s the present volume offers the first full translation of the Life in any modern language, the introduction intends to familiarize the reader with the Life, provide an overview of its recurring themes, and contextualize it within late antique Syriac hagiography. Furthermore, considering Barsauma’s extremely controversial after- life as a heretic and murderer in the Chalcedonian tradition, and as a saint in the non-Chalcedonian tradition, it seems crucial to attempt to reconstruct the historical Barsauma as much as this is possible from the extremely biased accounts. Finally, as the volume is also intended as a (first) companion to Barsauma, the introduction offers a short history of modern scholarship on the subject.

TE H LIFE OF BARSAUMA: OVERVIEW AND STRUCTURE The Life of Barsauma is extraordinary not only because of its length but also because of its unusual structure. The Life is built around ninety-nine “signs” per- formed by Barsauma and his disciples, including (healing) miracles, exorcisms, and curses.5 This configuration is notable as it stands in contrast to the structure of sixth-century non-Chalcedonian ’ Lives, which celebrate those who opposed the Council of Chalcedon, but do not contain any miracle stories. The focus of these Lives is not on the supernatural power of the saints but on their doctrinal positions.6 Barsauma’s battle against the Council of Chalcedon and the “heretics” ruling the , by contrast, is confined to the last third of the Life. Sixty percent of the Life presents an itinerant ascetic whose blessings and curses made as much of an impact on the poor as on the Roman elite, and who directed his violent zealotry against Jews, pagans, and Samaritans. Before analyzing some of the recurring motifs, a short overview of the structure of the Life is necessary. In §§ 1–31 the author introduces the saint. The first five paragraphs cover his childhood, his first vision, a prophecy by others concerning his future, his first discipleship, and—indeed—his first pilgrimage (out of a supposed total of four) to .7 The next twenty paragraphs (§§ 5–25) detail Barsauma’s and hardships (for example, his diet in § 19), and how his growing fame attracted dis- ciples and compelled him to found a cave .8 The author then presents Barsauma’s first exorcisms and miracles (§§ 26–31), even claiming that Barsauma

5. note that in the following the Life is quoted according to Palmer’s 166 paragraphs, not according to the “signs.” 6. for the historical Barsauma and the Christological debate, see below. Elijah’s Life of John of Tella, for example, contains no miracle; in Brooks, Vitae virorum apud monophysitas celeberrimorum, 31–95 (23–60). 7. §§ 1–4, as there are §§ 3A and 3B. 8. The author seems to have no concrete details of the foundation of the monastery, which is be- lieved—according to later tradition—to be southeast of Melitene.

Hahn-Wandering Holy Man.indd 2 03/04/20 5:14 PM Introduction 3

was able to stop the course of the sun (§ 29). These miracles, as well as Barsauma’s often fatal curses, become a defining feature of the entire Life. After this “introduction,” which establishes Barsauma as a local protagonist for whom others predicted an important future, the saint, accompanied by some of his disciples, starts his travels, though always returning to his home monastery. Barsauma’s first extensive journey to Mount Sinai, including another pilgrimage to Jerusalem, was framed by the famous : when Barsauma started his journey, Simeon declared him the most righteous man of his generation (§§ 32/33), and on his return north, Barsauma visited Simeon (§§ 46/47).9 The next section of the Life sees Barsauma at home in his monastery, offering exorcisms as well as mira- cles and curses (§§ 48–59: miracles concerning snakes, diseases, infertile land, etc.). Barsauma then travels again to different regions, performing exorcisms, fertil- ity miracles, miracles against pestilence, curses, and so on (§§ 60–73). After a short stay at home (§§ 74/75, which is short relative to the entire narrative of the Life; we are unable, however, to establish a chronology from the Life), he embarked on another pilgrimage to Jerusalem (§§ 76–83). This time he met Empress (who had come to Jerusalem in 438/9 and had permanently lived there since 441/2) and instructed her on almsgiving (§ 83). His return home (§§ 84–86) was paved with miracles, but his stay at home lasted for only a few miracles (§§ 87/88) before he made the (in)famous journey to Jerusalem (§§ 89/90) that has caught the atten- tion of scholars since Nau.10 A ccording to the hagiographer, 103,000 Jews who had been allowed by the empress Eudocia to convene in the city for the Feast of Tabernacles attempted to take over Jerusalem assisted by imperial officials, , and even the empress. Only Barsauma and his disciples resisted, and with the help of —who killed many of the Jews—they ensured that Jerusalem would remain a Christian city (§§ 91–96).11 This is not only the longest story, covering almost one-tenth of the Life, but also the most dramatic episode in the entire Life of Barsauma. The rest of the Life is overshadowed by the doctrinal controversy (§§ 98–166). Barsauma returned home (§ 97) from Jerusalem and performed signs and miracles (§§ 99–102). Heretics and apostates are mentioned for the first time in § 99, and Barsauma’s involvement in ecclesiastical politics begins after § 103, when his

9. simeon was a “rock star” among late antique saints whose fame probably grew even after his death, and his church, Qal’at Sim’an, became one of the most famous and most visited pilgrimage sites in the eastern Mediterranean. Simeon has another vision of Barsauma and meets with him (§§ 46–47). Another saint included in the Life—although less clearly identifiable—is James of Cyrrhestica (§ 90). 10. on the way he may have met with James of Cyrrhestica (§ 90), as noted above. 11. Volker Menze, “The Dark Side of Holiness: Barsauma the ‘Roasted’ and the Invention of a Jew- ish Jerusalem,” in Motions of . Essays on Religion, Politics, and Society in Honour of Peter Brown, ed. Jamie Kreiner and Helmut Reimitz (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016,) 231–48; see also below.

Hahn-Wandering Holy Man.indd 3 03/04/20 5:14 PM 4 Introduction

former fellow student and now bishop of Samosata, Zachariah, was killed by eccle- siastical opponents. Barsauma traveled to Constantinople (§ 103.3) to visit Emperor Theodosius II (408–450), who wanted to make him of (§ 105). Barsauma declined, but Theodosius nevertheless requested that he manage the affairs of the church as well as the poor. As will be discussed below in “The His- torical Barsauma,” Barsauma was then charged with presiding over the Second in 449 (§ 106). After these events, Barsauma traveled to the East and was supposed to convene another council in Antioch (§ 108). The historical Barsauma reached the peak of his influence in 449 only to be regarded as a heretic two years later, and the hagiographer translates this turn of events as the result of Satan being jealous of Barsauma’s victories and conspiring against him through clerics and other influential men of the empire (starting in § 109). Theodosius’s death is recorded (§ 113), as is the initiative of the emperor’s successor, , to convene the Council of Chalcedon (§ 116) that considered Barsauma to be a heretic, and Marcian’s oppression of resistance against the coun- cil (§ 119). Until the end of his life (§ 157), the Chalcedonians ( = “heretics” in the Life) harass Barsauma, accuse him of sorcery (§ 115), slander him (§ 120), and try to kill him (§§ 143–152). The hagiographer assures readers that Barsauma longed for martyrdom, but none of the plots succeeded. Yet Barsauma was not a saint who endured injustice quietly—he cursed Empress (§ 128) as well as Emperor Marcian (§ 153), both of whom died shortly afterward.A nd he showed his strength even in his old age: he continued to travel to Persia (§ 110.15) and once more to Constantinople (§ 112), and finally returned home (after § 129 he seems to have stayed at his home monastery until his death in § 157). As a saint, Barsauma provided the faithful with cures and miracles after his death (§§ 162/63). The Life ends with two colophons regarding the possible author, Samuel (§§ 164/65).12

REU C Rring MOTIFS AND HAGIOGRAPHIC CONTEXT M any motifs in the Life of Barsauma are common to late antique hagiography: cases similar to Barsauma’s severe asceticism can be found in many hagiographic narratives of the time, the prime example being Simeon Stylites, and ’s History of the Monks of Syria, which is full of holy men who practice severe morti- fication of their bodies. Like many protagonists of such hagiographic narratives, Barsauma is explicitly compared to protagonists—for example, to Moses (§ 14.4), Elisha (§§ 18.3 and 49.4) and Elijah (§ 158.5). Also a wandering ascetic is not uncommon in the fifth century: Alexander the Sleepless and Peter

12. for author and date, see below.

Hahn-Wandering Holy Man.indd 4 03/04/20 5:14 PM Introduction 5

the Iberian are well-documented examples, but, as the canons of Chalcedon from 451 show, wandering ascetics were considered problems for ecclesiastical supervi- sion by the bishops.13 The degree of itinerancy may have varied widely, and in Barsauma’s case, it remains difficult to judge how much of his life he was a wander- ing ascetic, as the Life offers no date for either his journeys or his stays at his home monastery. The focus on his extensive travels, however, indicates that for the description of his holy deeds, the aspect of itinerancy mattered greatly, even though he always returned to his monastery at some point. Anti-heretical, anti-Jewish, and anti-pagan sentiments are not unique to the Life of Barsauma; they can be found in other Syriac hagiography of the time as well. remarked recently concerning the (anti-)heretical elements in Syr- iac hagiography that in “prose Lives of the fifth to the seventh century, when theo- logical controversy was at its height, an element of propaganda was rarely absent.”14 The sixth-century Life of John of Tella by a certain Elias, for example, focuses exclu- sively on John’s opposition to the (according to the hagiographer, heretical) Chalce- donians.15 The earlier Life of Rabbula includes some anti-heretical as well as anti- pagan elements.16 Jews are mentioned here as well but do not play a major role as opponents of Rabbula. Jews (and Samaritans) also appear in both the famous Syriac Life of Simeon Stylites and the Life of Peter the Iberian. Simeon Stylites supposedly wrote a letter to Emperor TheodosiusI I opposing the protection of synagogues (Syr- iac v. Sim. 121–23), but other than the general theme that a Christian emperor should not be the friend of Jewish communities, Jews are absent from the Life of Simeon. In the Life of Peter the Iberian Jews appear as potential converts, and in the Life of Rab- bula the Jewish population in laments the death of the saint, although they do not share his faith.17 Anti-Judaism is clearly not at the forefront of any of these Lives. TheseLives stand in stark contrast to the Life of Barsauma: anti-Jewish rhetoric and violent acts against Jews and synagogues, along with anti-pagan and anti-Samaritan sentiments, characterize the first two-thirds of theLife (until § 104,

13. see especially 4, which no longer allowed monks to wander around without explicit permission from their bishops. 14. sebastian P. Brock, “Syriac Hagiography,” in The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Ha- giography, vol. 1, Periods and Places, ed. Stephanos Efthymiadis (London: Ashgate, 2011), 260. 15. see n. 6 above. 16. see now Phenix and Horn, The Rabbula Corpus. 17. of course, Judaism equals falsehood (see Glen W. Bowersock, “The Syriac Life of Rabbula and Syrian Hellenism,” in Greek Biography and Panegyrics in Late Antiquity, ed. Tomas Hägg and Philip Rousseau [Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000], 264) but this idea is not prominent in these hagiographies; for the Jewish girl who converts in the Life of Peter the Iberian: Cornelia B. Horn, “Anti- Jewish Polemic and Conversion of Jews to Anti-Chalcedonian Asceticism in the Holy Land: The Case of Eugenia of Tyre,” Aram, 18–19 (2006–2007): 33–48. Jews mourn the death of Rabbula, and Samari- tans accompany the burial procession of Peter the Iberian, according to their Lives.

Hahn-Wandering Holy Man.indd 5 03/04/20 5:14 PM 6 Introduction

when the Life becomes anti-heretical). Barsauma is depicted as a saint on a mis- sion to Christianize and the “holy places,” actively engaging in battles against opponents, especially the numerous and powerful Jews, but also pagans and Samaritans as well as imperial officials. VolkerM enze recently argued that the hagiographer deliberately invented the image of a Jewish Jerusalem that his hero was then able to conquer and take over in order to make the city permanently Christian.18 Barsauma’s supposed four pilgrimages to Jerusalem in the first half of the Life emphasize the saint’s ties to the holy places.19 The second half of the hagiography (roughly 40 percent of the Life) is dedicated to Barsauma’s fight against Dyophysite clerics, the Council of Chalcedon, and the nonecclesiastical, imperial supporters of this council. At the beginning of this part, Barsauma is presented as reaching the peak of his influence whenE mperor Theodo- sius II (408–450) supposedly asked him to preside over the Second Council of Ephesus in 449, regarded as the third at the time. However, after Emperor Marcian came to power in 450 and convoked the Council of Chal- cedon in 451 (which nullified the decisions of Ephesus II), Barsauma’s influence fell rapidly. Although the Life does not depict him as having been condemned, he was on the defensive: the Chalcedonians, presented as powerful and influential persons, close in on the saint, including (unsuccessful) assassination attempts on his life. Barsauma’s most prominent opponents were of course the emperor Marcian and his wife, Pulcheria. Overall, the author creates throughout the Life the image of a saint who was surrounded by powerful opponents from all religious corners, while Barsauma and his disciples are depicted as the only who retained . However, what strikes the (modern) reader most is the intensity of Barsauma’s enmities, and the saint’s merciless attitude. The hagiographer does not just depict a saint whose beliefs and virtues were opposed to those of heretics, Jews, pagans, and Samaritans but a hero who sought to subdue his enemies completely or kill them. When Barsauma reached the pagan city Reqem d-Gaya, he did not just per- suade the non-Christian inhabitants of the superiority of the Christian God by predicting and producing much-needed rain, but he let the rain continue for days until the masses of water threatened to drown the city (§ 35). Only when even the most stubborn opponent gave up resistance, the priests of the city had destroyed their pagan idols, and the demons had left the city—only after such a total victory, did Barsauma stop the rain (§ 36).

18. menze, “The Dark Side of Holiness.” 19. other saints also went to Jerusalem as part of their faith but usually just once. For Rabbula, see Overbeck, S. Ephraemi Syri opera selecta, 164–65 (tr. Doran, 69–70). Daniel the originally want- ed to go there as well but was advised to go to the second Jerusalem, Constantinople: Life of 10 (ed. Delehaye, 11–12, tr. Dawes and Baynes, Three Byzantine Saints, 12–13).

Hahn-Wandering Holy Man.indd 6 03/04/20 5:14 PM Introduction 7

M any other episodes underline the uncompromising character of Barsauma: the most prominent is certainly Barsauma’s famous “reconquest” of Jerusalem, in the course of which God killed many of the Jews (§§ 91–96). The violence, how- ever, was not confined to Jews or heretics; it was also directed against coreligionists (if they did not lead a God-fearing life) and against the saint himself: Barsauma not only deprived himself of nourishment but seriously punished and hurt his body by wearing “an iron tunic next to his skin. He used to keep his face and his chest turned toward the sun as it traveled across the sky, so that his body became roasted by its rays, resembling a fish that is fried in a pan. It was scorched by the heat of the iron, like the skin of a lamb when it blisters in a fiery oven” (§ 17.1). Most disturbing—and hardly in line with official ecclesiastical policy—are the episodes in the Life that openly depict spitefulness toward Barsauma’s opponents: “Now the [non-Chalcedonian] priest of that village took pleasure in his [the Chal- cedonian priest’s] distress, because he had been persecuted for his Faith. He and his congregation all gave thanks to God, because they were on Barsauma’s side” (§ 141.6). The Chalcedonian priest begged for mercy and asked them to send for Barsauma, but to no avail: “After suffering great torments, that priest gave up the ghost” (§ 141.9). Other stories, in which God employed demons in order to tor- ment women who made fun of Barsauma, almost sound blasphemous (§ 58). Using the to clean the source of water of an evil spirit (§ 49) was also not in line with official church doctrine at the time.20 O verall, the Life is unique: while it retains some chronological order—from Barsauma’s youth and beginnings as an ascetic through the peak of his influence as a non-Chalcedonian archimandrite right up to his death—it is grouped around miracles and curses. Barsauma is a most powerful saint, used to negotiating with emperors and deciding about ecclesiastical politics; an accomplished ascetic and mourner; and at the same time a gloating and sadistic hero who annihilates all religious life that does not meet his own standards. The Life certainly belongs to Syriac hagiography, as it was written originally in Syriac, but it is also connected to Palestinian hagiography because so much of its narrative concerns the “Holy Land” through the reports of Barsauma’s “pilgrimages.”

AT U Hor AND DATE The Life ends with two colophons offering information about the supposed author. The first is written anonymously in the first person: the author apologizes

20. see Volker Menze, “The Power of theE ucharist in Early Medieval Syria: Grant for or Magical Medication?,” in Prayer and Worship in Eastern Christianities, 5th to 11th Centuries, ed. Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony and Derek Krueger (London and : Routledge, 2017), 116–31.

Hahn-Wandering Holy Man.indd 7 03/04/20 5:14 PM 8 Introduction

for the length of the Life but at the same time warns the reader that he actually “left many signs unwritten” (§ 164). The second speaks with a different voice: N ow it was the priest Samuel who wrote down these acts (consisting) of the achieve- ments of the champion Barsauma. He was one of Barsauma’s first disciples. But all of us know that all these things have been written down in truth. This same priestS am- uel also wrote many metrical homilies and teaching-songs and sermons on the Faith and on various subjects; and refutations of all superstitions; and a refutation of the Dyophysites; and fine commentaries on the Scriptures. As for us, slaves of , who have concluded this book, we conjure you by the almighty God, let no one dare to change even one of its excellent words! (§ 165.1–3) H ere, we are led to believe that a group of Barsauma’s disciples confirmed the author’s account and identified him as a priest called Samuel, who was also the author of a number of other treatises. However, this Samuel is otherwise com- pletely unknown.21 If true, the Life would have been written shortly after Barsau- ma’s death in 456,22 but the date of the Life has been debated in scholarship. In his multivolume work, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient, Arthur Vööbus dismissed the authenticity of the note on Samuel because in the first colo- phon the author remained anonymous and only noted, “The Lord knows my name.”23 However, while the second colophon is certainly added by a different scribe, who ascribed the Life to Samuel, this alone hardly speaks against the authenticity of Samuel as author. Vööbus noted summarily the possibility that the author of the Life may have known a Syriac translation of Malalas’s Chronicle as well as that he must have been aware of the Julianist controversy, which started after 518, between the non-Chalcedonian bishops Julian of Halicarnassos and .24 Therefore Vööbus dated the Life to after 550, a dating that Lucas van Rompay recently took for granted.25

21. ignatius A. I. Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls: A History of Syriac Literature and Sciences (Piscat- away, NJ: , 2003), 244–45. 22. for the date, see below in the section “The Historical Barsauma.” 23. arthur Vööbus, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient: A Contribution to the History of Culture in the , CSCO 197 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1960), 2:197. 24. for a report on the early stages of the clash, see Sebastian P. Brock, “A Report from a Supporter of Severos on Trouble in ,” in SYNAXIS KATHOLIKE: Beiträge zu Gottesdienst und Ge- schichte der fünf altkirchlichen für Heinzgerd Brakmann zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Diliana Atanassova and Tinatin Chronz (Vienna: Lit, 2014), 47–64. 25. lucas van Rompay, “Barsawmo,” in Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, ed. Sebastian P. Brock et al. (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2011), 59.

Hahn-Wandering Holy Man.indd 8 03/04/20 5:14 PM Introduction 9

Concerning the question of Malalas as source, Vööbus seems to have taken over this point from Ernest Honigmann (without acknowledgment), who—like Vööbus—did not detail this argument any further.26 However, as Andrew Palmer pointed out recently, it probably refers to the allusion to the “count of the Black Sea Straits” in the Life (§ 122.1).27 The first literary note of this office comes from Pro- copius for the time of Emperor Justinian, but an inscription published in the 1980s indicates that it existed already in the fifth century.28 The Julianist controversy con- cerning the incorruptibility of Christ’s body cannot be detailed here, but the story in the Life of Barsauma of a possessed woman questioning the human simply shows that understanding the nature of Christ’s body was an issue long before Julian of Halicarnassos (§ 137)—and was certainly already discussed around 450.29 Therefore, Palmer suggested most recently that the text could be “as early as 456.”30 I n contrast to earlier scholars, Palmer also had the full text at his disposal and rightly noted that the author of the Life mentioned twice that he wanted to come to an end of the story: in § 102.1 he wrote, “I now come, therefore, to the end of his contest, the last part of the tale of his victorious deeds,” and in § 114.2 he confessed, “I must press on toward the conclusion of Barsauma’s story.” As the version we have now contains 166 paragraphs according to Palmer’s counting, it may well be that another (maybe sixth-century) author took over later or at least added some of the stories. Johannes Hahn persuasively argues in this volume that the episodes concerning the Samaritans (§§ 80 and 84) could not have been written after the Samaritan uprisings (starting 484);31 therefore, at least the first part up to § 102 must have been written in the decades after Barsauma’s death.A s there is no

26. ernest Honigmann, Le couvent de Barsauma et le patriarcat jacobite d’Antioche et de Syrie, CSCO 146, Subsidia 7 (Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste L. Durbecq, 1954), 15; see p. 16, where he dated the Life to 550–650 without providing details. 27. andrew Palmer, “The West-Syrian Monastic Founder Bars.awmo: A Historical Review of the Scholarly Literature,” in Orientalia Christiana: Festschrift für Hubert Kaufhold zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Peter Bruns and Heinz Otto Luthe (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013), 408 n. 39. 28. The inscription may be dated to around 470; see Fiona Haarer, Anastasius I; Politics and Empire in the Late Roman World (Cambridge: Francis Cairns, 2006), 216–20 with references. 29. Thus already Palmer, “The West-Syrian Monastic Founder Barsawmo,” 408. Surprisingly no scholar has pointed to the Acts of the Second Council of Ephesus in 449, which record a libellus discussing this issue: Flemming, Akten der Ephesinischen Synode, 128–31. For the Julianist controversy, see now Yonatan Moss, Incorruptible Bodies: , Society, and Authority in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2016). 30. andrew Palmer, “A Tale of Two . TheA rchimandrite Barsumas at Ephesus in 449 and at Chalcedon in 451,” Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 66 (2014): 39; Palmer, “The West-Syrian Monas- tic Founder Barsawmo,” 408. 31. see below, p. 00.

Hahn-Wandering Holy Man.indd 9 03/04/20 5:14 PM 10 Introduction

strict chronological framework, it would have been easy for any writer copyist to embellish the Life with further miracle stories. If the author intended to close the narrative shortly after § 102, the Chalcedonian controversy would have been a later addition.32 H owever, two observations not yet discussed in scholarship are worth men- tioning. In the later part of the Life, one of those Chalcedonians who threatened to kill Barsauma was supposedly the bishop of (§ 151). Although there is no name in the Life, this can refer only to Theodoret of Cyrrhus, the great Dyophysite theologian and staunch opponent of the patriarchs of Alexandria Cyril and Dios- corus. It seems rather unlikely that Theodoret would have cooked up such a plot, but it might indicate that the Life was written rather early, when the hatred against one of the major winners of the Council of Chalcedon was still fresh.33 The Life notes the death of this bishop (in other words, before Barsauma’s death in 456), and, as scholars have set Theodoret’s death between 453 and 466, it would support an early date for Theodoret’s demise, perhaps 455—if it bears any historical value.34 Notable also is that the Life mentions (older) contemporary saints like Jacob of Cyrrhestica and Simeon Stylites, but Peter the Iberian remains absent. If the Life of Peter had already been composed, and his fame had spread, it is likely that the author of the Life of Barsauma would have mentioned him as well. As wrote the Life of Peter the Iberian after 491, it also contributes to the conclusion that the Life of Barsauma—or a first draft—was a fifth-century composition.35 A firm dating for the Life remains difficult, but the composition of such a forceful and angry polemic against everything that is not non-Chalcedonian, fits best in the decades following the Council of Chalcedon in 451.36

32. if the author originally ended the narrative soon after § 114, it is difficult to see a good cutoff point, as the Chalcedonian controversy just started here with the rule of Emperor Marcian. 33. however, both parties, Chalcedonians as well as non-Chalcedonians, kept their grudges alive for centuries, and the non-Chalcedonian belief of Theodoret’s wickedness is welldocumented. Ps.- Zacharias Rhetor in his Chronicle III.1 (Greatrex et al., 103) credits Theodoret with having been asked to preside over the Council of Chalcedon. 34. for the various options for dating Theodoret’s death, see István Pásztori-Kupán, Theodoret of Cyrrhus (London: Routledge, 2006), 26. 35. although Peter’s fame may have spread only in Syriac-speaking areas after his Life had been translated into Syriac; see John Rufus, Life of Peter the Iberian (Horn and Phenix), lxxiii-lxxxv. The character of Barsauma as depicted in his Life speaks against a reception of Barsauma in the Life of Peter the Iberian. 36. Considering the author’s knowledge of the height of Simeon Stylites’s column (§ 32.3) as dis- cussed below: Theodoret’s account ofS imeon was already available when Barsauma died, and maybe the increasing heights of Simeon’s columns were general knowledge in monastic circles in the Near East.

Hahn-Wandering Holy Man.indd 10 03/04/20 5:14 PM Introduction 11

THE HISTORICAL BARSAUMA: THE RECORD FROM THE LIFE With a complete edition of the Life in hand, we are now in a much better position than previous scholars to provide an accurate image of the historical Barsauma. It must be said up-front, however, that Barsauma remains an obscure (although influ- ential) historical figure of his time.37 Only a few accounts mention Barsauma at all: the Acts of the Second Council of Ephesus, the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (partially incorporating Acts of the Second Council of Ephesus), and the Life.38 In other words, except for a few but very important pieces of information, we rely exclusively on a hagiography that can hardly be regarded as a credible source. According to the Life, Barsauma may have been born in a village called Beth Awton in the district of Samosata around 384 and probably died on 1 February 456, in his monastery southeast of Melitene.39 After the early death of his father, his mother remarried and moved to another village (§ 3A.1). A certain Abraham became his spiritual father, and in the following years Barsauma practiced extreme asceticism, endured many hardships, and undertook several pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Shortly after his own episcopal ordination, BishopG emellius of Perrha (411–435) ordained Barsauma as a (§ 12.3), together with an otherwise unknown Zachariah, who appears later as bishop of Samosata (§ 103). Gemellius is known

37. he would still be remembered in Chalcedonian heresiologies next to and Dioscorus centuries later: see Patriarch ’s Synodical Letter, in Pauline Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-Century : The “Synodical Letter” and Other Documents (Oxford: , 2009), 140–41. 38. There are a few later authors who, however, based their knowledge of Barsauma on the texts mentioned above: in the Greek Chalcedonian tradition Theodore Anagnostes (see Günther Christian Hansen, “Ein kurzer Bericht über das Konzil von Chalkedon,” Fontes Minores 10 [1998]: 101–39) and in the Syrian Orthodox tradition especially the Syrian (for example, Chronicle VIII.6–7 and VIII.10, ed. and tr. J.-B. Chabot, 4:172, 178–80, 183, and 196–97; tr. in 2:14–15 and 25, 28–29, 33, and 52–53) but also Barhebraeus (Ecclesiastical Chronicle, ed. Wilmshurst, 52–53, 58–59, 62–63, 64–67); Palmer, “The West-Syrian Monastic Founder Barsawmo,” discusses Michael’s use of the Life; Barsauma is also men- tioned in the Syriac Life of Daniel (of Mount Aghlosh): Palmer, “A Tale of Two Synods,” 55–56. 39. § 7.2 noted that Barsauma did not sit or lie down for fifty-four years until his death (the fifty- four years are repeated in § 10.3), and it is assumed that he started this practice when he was eighteen years old (as young ascetic). His death can be more firmly dated to 1 February (§ 157.4), and as he died shortly before Emperor Marcian (who died January 457)—but with one harvest in between (§ 159.4)— and Proterius of Alexandria (who also died in 457), the year of Barsauma’s death seems to be 456; Palmer also regards this as Barsauma’s year of death: Palmer, “The West-Syrian Monastic Founder Barsawmo,” 399 and 403; and Palmer, “A Tale of Two Synods,” 50. Vööbus, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient, 2:203 thinks either 457 or 458.

Hahn-Wandering Holy Man.indd 11 03/04/20 5:14 PM 12 Introduction

from another source, but the ordination of Barsauma cannot be verified.40 The Life also makes reference to Simeon Stylites, who supposedly declared Barsauma the most righteous man of his generation (§§ 32/33), and Barsauma later visited him (§ 47). The author of theLife might have known (one of) the Lives of Simeon, as he noted the precise heights of Simeon’s columns, but the knowledge is not reciprocal: Simeon’s three extant Lives do not mention Barsauma.41 A ccording to the Life, Barsauma’s fame grew through a crude mixture of pro- viding miracles and the saint’s zeal in destroying pagan idols and temples, Jewish Sabbath houses, and Samaritan synagogues. During one of his stays in Jerusalem, it was up to Barsauma to prevent a Jewish coup d’état from taking over the holy city.42 Barsauma also traveled to Constantinople to meet Emperor Theodosius II (§§ 103.3 and 104) because Barsauma’s former colleague Bishop Zachariah of Samosata (maybe bishop ca. 446–448) was stoned to death (§ 103.2).43 As he did not accept any gifts, Barsauma rose in the emperor’s “esteem to the status of one of the apostles” (§ 104.4), and the emperor asked Barsauma to become (at that point still occupied by Domnus [442–449], who was deposed by Dioscorus of Alexandria at the Second Council of Ephesus in 449) and his disci- ples to be ordained bishops of other sees (§ 105.1). Barsauma declined, but Theodosius continued to urge him “to take care of the management of the Church and of the poor, even while remaining in the habit of a mourner, and be a director for the bishops in the cities and for the judges in all regions” (§ 105.3). The emperor gave Barsauma his ring in order to invest him with his own power, and wrote to the bishops in 449, when they had convened for the council

40. gemellius was the addressee of a letter by Rabbula of Edessa; see Georg Günter Blum, Rabbula von Edessa: Der Christ, der Bischof, der Theologe, CSCO 300, Subsidia 34 (Louvain: Secrétariat du Cor- pusSCO, 1969), 111–12 and 126–28; see also Klaus-Peter Todt and Bernd A. Vest, Syria (Syria Prōtē, Syria Deutera, Syria Euphratēsia), Tabula Imperii Byzantini 15 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2015), 2:1575. 41. The height of the columns as mentioned in § 32.2 matches most of the heights as given by Theodoret—with one mismatch (24 instead of 22 cubits), and one additional height that can be found in Simeon’s Vita by Antonios and the Syriac Life; see Robert Doran’s introduction in The Lives of Sime- on Stylites, 17. Matti Moosa, The in History (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1986), 65–66 refers to an unpublished manuscript of the Life of Simeon that supposedly mentions Barsauma. However, Moo- sa probably refers here to the Simeon story in the Life of Barsauma and mixed this up with the Life of Simeon. I am indebted to Dina Boero (Princeton) who discussed this problem with me via e-mail. 42. menze, “The Dark Side of Holiness,” 237–40. 43. We do not know of Zacharias otherwise, but it is possible that a bishop was killed by a mob as part of the ecclesiastical controversies at the time. In 449 a certain Rufinus was bishop ofS amosata: ACO II.1.1, 79 (tr. Price and Gaddis, 1:145). Todt and Vest, Syria, 2: 1688 date the tenure of Zacharias tentatively be- tween Andreas of Samosata (428/9–445) and Rufinus (449 [or earlier)]–after 451);G iorgio Fedalto, Hier- archia Ecclesiastica Orientalis, vol. 2 (Padua: Edizioni Messaggero, 1988) does not know of Zacharias.

Hahn-Wandering Holy Man.indd 12 03/04/20 5:14 PM Introduction 13

in Ephesus, that Barsauma had become the emperor’s “father and director,” and that bishops and judges would be at Barsauma’s command: “Let the judgment of the of bishops be decided according to the word of that Slave of God” (§ 106.3). The Life glances over the Council of Ephesus in a few sentences, depicting Barsauma as having presided over it, while Dioscorus and Juvenal of Jerusalem—who of course, accord- ing to the surviving Acts of the council, were the leading protagonists—played only secondary roles (§ 107). After the council, the Life claims that Barsauma was in charge of convening a synod in Antioch and chose a successor for Domnus of Antioch, who was deposed in Ephesus.44 H onigmann argued that the author of the Life intended to present the saint as the first non-Chalcedonian quasi patriarch of Antioch: “Les propositions que Théodose fait à Barsaumā de résider à Antioche et d’y nommer des évêques ‘pur les autres villes’, la présidence du pretend concile d’Antioche, tout cela trahit clairement le désir de presenter le saint comme le premier patriarche monophysite d’Antioche.”45 The Life continues that Theodosius sent out a letter “to the whole Roman Empire” in which he supposedly made Barsauma the caretaker of all churches, the commander of all judges, the father of all bishops, and the executive of the emperor (§ 108.3). In sum, Barsauma became the highest authority in the Roman Empire, and opposing him equaled opposition to God (§ 108.4).

TE H HisTORICAL BARSAUMA AT EPHESUS AND CHALCEDON, 449/51 These fantastic episodes make the Life a wonderful piece of late antique hagiogra- phy, but none of these stories should be given much historical credibility, with one partial exception—Barsauma indeed gained an unusually elevated position at the Council of Ephesus in 449. However, although Barsauma’s participation in that council is not made up, the Life greatly exaggerates his role. According to an impe- rial letter that survives in the Acts of the council, Emperor Theodosius (408–450) did invite Barsauma to the Second Council of Ephesus: I t has not escaped Our Piety in what sort of contest the most God-fearing and holy archimandrites of the East have been engaged, fighting on behalf of the orthodox faith and turning away from certain bishops among those in the Oriental cities sick with the impiety of , the orthodox peoples being joined with the same most

44. The Life does not mention any condemnations or depositions but simply mentions that Bar- sauma left for Antioch to appoint a new bishop; this seems rather unlikely, but Palmer, “A Tale of Two Synods,” 51 considers it a possibility. 45. honigmann, Le couvent de Barsauma, 20; this has to be seen in connection with Honigmann dating the Life of Barsauma to a time when the Syrian Orthodox Church was being established.

Hahn-Wandering Holy Man.indd 13 03/04/20 5:14 PM 14 Introduction

God-fearing archimandrites in the contest. Therefore, since Your Holiness also has endured this sort of toil on behalf of the orthodox faith and appeared before Our Piety, we think it right for Your Holiness, renowned for purity of life and orthodox faith, to arrive at the city of Ephesians and, acting in the place of all the most God- fearing archimandrites in the East, to sit with the decreed to assemble there and to decree things pleasing to God with the other holy fathers and bishops.46 Theodosius’s invitation to Barsauma is also mentioned in the emperor’s invita- tion to Dioscorus of Alexandria, and in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, Bar- sauma signed as “presbyter and archimandrite,” representing himself, not any absent bishop.47 He gave his verdict as last participant for the of the archimandrite Eutyches as well as the condemnation of Flavian of Constantinople and of Dorylaeum, but he signed as 133rd of 140 bishops (or their repre- sentatives, but even some bishops signed after Barsauma).48 In other words, Bar- sauma held a unique position for a nonbishop as a full member at an ecumenical council. However, offering ecclesiastical representation to the ascetic and monas- tic layer of society might have been regarded as logical at the time. Asceticism/ monasticism had developed as the most dynamic element of since the days of Anthony and Pachomius. Fifth-century monasticism was not an exclu- sively rural or contemplative phenomenon; as Peter Hatlie rightly pointed out for the city of Constantinople, monks “claimed increasingly more public rights for themselves and spoke with a louder voice than had been imaginable in an earlier generation.”49 When the archimandrite Eutyches was condemned in 448, the local council consisted of thirty-two bishops and twenty-three archimandrites. It was in this “politicized climate” that monks played their part in ecclesiastical politics, and

46.CO A II.1.1, 71 (tr. Price and Gaddis, 1:137, but the present translation is taken from Simon Corcoran’s contribution, which differs in one important matter concerning Barsauma’s stay in Con- stantinople; see below). 47. ACO II.1.1, 71 (tr. Price and Gaddis, 1:136). See also the English translation of same text in the Syriac Acts: Samuel G. F. Perry, The Second Council of Ephesus (Dartford: Orient Press, 1881), 405. Ad- ditional material translated from MS Add. 12156 in the British Library; see also Fergus Millar, “The Syriac Acts of the Second Council of Ephesus (449),” in Chalcedon in Context: Church Councils, 400– 700, ed. Richard Price and Mary Whitby (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2009), 45–69. There are signatures of 130 bishops in the first sessionG ( reek text), and 112 signatures of bishops in the last session (Syriac): ACO II.1.1, 78–81 (tr. Price and Gaddis, 1:145–46); Flemming, Akten der ephe- sinischen Synode, 8–9. 48. maybe the last signatures were collected from absent bishops or their representatives. See the Acts of Ephesus preserved in the first session of the Council of Chalcedon: I.884 (113): ACO II.1.1, 186. For the sentence against Flavian and Eusebius, the Greek version is abbreviated; only the text preserves the full text: I.1069 and I.1070 (133); ACO II.3.1, 252 and 258. 49. Peter Hatlie, The Monks and of Constantinople, ca. 350–850 (Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 2007), 112.

Hahn-Wandering Holy Man.indd 14 03/04/20 5:14 PM Introduction 15

that episcopal as well as imperial protagonists attempted to use them also for their own ends.50 The Council of Chalcedon in 451 attempted to limit the monks’ influence in ecclesiastical politics, but this must be understood as a reaction against the extremely powerful Cyrillian and Alexandrian monastic party (to which Bar- sauma also belonged) that had supported the council of 449.51 In other words, for contemporaries before 451 a monastic representation at Ephesus II may have been regarded as natural recognition of the importance of monks and monasticism for ecclesiastical politics at the time, while it was only Chalcedon that brought about an abrupt and unexpected break with the historical development up to 450. Be this as it may, bishops nevertheless retained their dominant position within the church, as one participant of subepiscopal rank among more than 100 bishops speaks against any “democratization” in ecclesiastical matters. However, a representative—who was presbyter after all52—with a dedicated following could be a powerful tool at any synod. At the same time, this archimandrite could curb unruly monks, and allow episcopal and imperial leadership to channel monkish demands. At first glance, the obvious choice for such an elevated political position might have been Eutyches, an influential archimandrite in Constantinople.53 Nestorius, the deposed and condemned bishop of Constantinople (428–431), complained in exile ca. 450 that because Emperor TheodosiusII supported Eutyches without any reservation, the archimandrite could behave like a “bishop of bishops,” and The- ophanes Confessor reports centuries later that , omnipotent eunuch at Theodosius’s court, wished to install Eutyches as bishop of Constantinople

50. for the empress Pulcheria, see, for example, John A. McGuckin, “Nestorius and the Political Factions of Fifth-Century Byzantium: Factors in His Personal Downfall,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 78.3 (1996): 14–18. 51. for the legal aspects of Chalcedon for monks and monasticism, see Leo Ueding, “Die Kanones von Chalkedon in ihrer Bedeutung für Mönchtum und Klerus,” in Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Alois Grillmeier and Heinrich Bacht (Würzburg: Echter, 1953), 2: 569–676. 52. The Life may actually be correct in stating that Barsauma was considered worthy to be ordained bishop, but promotion probably had no appeal for Barsauma, as he would lose the monkish foundation of his support. 53. eutyches has been studied since Eduard Schwartz, Der Prozess des Eutyches (Munich: Bayer- ische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1929). See also Georg May, “Das Lehrverfahren gegen Eutyches im November des Jahres 448: Zur Vorgeschichte des Konzils von Chalkedon,” Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 21 (1989): 1–61. George A. Bevan and Patrick T. R. Gray, “The Trial of Eutyches: A New Interpretation,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 101 (2008): 617–57 revise some of the previous conclusions and see only a limited influence of Eutyches at court. In fact, they claim that Eutyches “presented an easy target for the prosecution” in 448 that led to his condemnation (654).

Hahn-Wandering Holy Man.indd 15 03/04/20 5:14 PM